Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
The differences is... The consumer can see the pool full of water, as it fills. The consumer can't see the bit-torrent traffic as it fills their usage budget. Or for that matter, they can't see their bandwidth usage pool filling with any type of traffic. There is no perception of traffic size, when the content probvider has the freedom to deliver it in any capacity. a Bitmap can be 5mb or 5kb, the vioewer would never know the difference when they clicked the URL to get to the page. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "David Hulsebus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality >I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the > month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water > to fill my pool was going to cost me. > > I have 60 customers that I loose money on every month. I can afford the > implementation for what I will gain in revenue or gain back in > profitability; so I'm moving in that direction. > > 70 % of my customers said they would prefer it. I expect that when it's > implemented more like 90 % will like it and the other 10 % can pay for > what they really want - 24 X 7 usage of large amounts of bandwidth or not. > > I either need to make money on the account or not have it. I'm not a > charity and not subsidized to provide it at a loss. > > Dave Hulsebus > > Matt wrote: >>> usage based means tiers of prices... No matter what you tell people or >>> how >>> you warn them, if your bill this month is $100 and last month it was >>> $25, >>> they WILL BE ANGRY. >>> >>> Further, automating systems to bill per gig is kind of a pain. >>> >>> The answer, then, I guess is... convenience. >>> >> >> We were looking at throttling the over quotta users at peak times >> based on a 7-day window of usage. >> >> Matt >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 > 4:18 PM > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Fully agree John. All this does was reproduce the Wmux/tsunami problem that plaqued 2.4 and 5.8 WISPs. Important that when we pitch lite licensed like 3650, that we are only talking about the AP registration, and part90, and NOT the power level rules. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule > should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow > channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a > little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how they > got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing > also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone out > of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I see > what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country > involving spectrum policy. > Scriv > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify >> something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> >> Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on >> 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I >> read >> on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your >> base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations >> in >> your area? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michiana Wireless, Inc. >> John Buwa, President >> >> http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com >> 574-233-7170 >> >> "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" >> >> *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* >> >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Charles Wu >> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... >> > >> > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures >> > those depending on the type of traffic) >> > >> > --- >> > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >> > Coming to a City Near You >> > http://www.winog.com >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Jeff Booher >> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM >> > To: 'WISPA General List' >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > >> > >> > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar >> > GPS >> > settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues >> > of >> > interference. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Jeff Booher >> > >> > Channel Manager, North America >> > www.apertonet.com >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > 24/7: 206-455-4950 >> > >> > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or >> > work >> > product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, >> > reliance or >> > distribution by others without express permission is strictly >> > prohibited. If >> > you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and >> > delete all >> > copies. >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM >> > To: 'WISPA General List' >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > John, >> > >> > >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same >> > >GPS >> > sync, so all WiMax gear with the appropriate timing settings equal can >> > be >> > timed together. Apparently the FCC is requiring it for the equipment >> > to be >> > certified. >> > >> > Daniel White >> > 3-dB Networks >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of John Rock >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:37 PM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > I would disagree. WiMAX should be a goal for most WISPs to get into >> > their >> > networks over the next 1-3 years. >> > Why??? Roaming!!! It will be the real deal and the WISP market, if they >> > do >> > the right things, will be able to setup roaming agreements to exist >> > with >> > each other all over the USA. >> > CPE will be available in all sorts of devices between 2.3 and 3.8 GHz >> > a
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Then could someone explain how this works out in real life? The problem I have here, is that it appears that if we deploy some 3 or 5 mhz channels, we're going to be severely hampered EIRP-wise, from reaching any distance at all. Now, the UBNT XR3's are certified for a 5, 10, and 20 mzh channel, but according to them, the 20 is really 17, due to the low power transmitted at the edge. So, a 10 would be 8.5, for instance. But, the cards are certified for one set of antennas and one power output for all three sizes. It just isn't very high, backhauls would need to be under 15 miles to keep the signal level up. - Original Message - From: "Harold Bledsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > Right, Mike. The FCC's thinking appears to be power density and not > just straight power. This is why, with the same power, you will see > roughly a 3dB RX increase from cutting the channel size in half. > > -Hal > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: WISPA General List > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:56 -0500 > > I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand when you apply 20 dBm to > channels of different widths, the same gross power is spread out. Each Hz > receives less power in a wider channel. This rule allows the larger > channels to not face the power punishment. > > Spectral efficiency has little to do with the channel width and more with > the technology. You can use an Atheros chipset to produce channel widths > of > 5, 10, 20, and 40 MHz, but they all traffic roughly the same bits/Hz. > > Squashing the entire band is something that'll happen when you're given > such > small bands and attempting to push big data over it. That's where the > contention requirements and synch of some kind come in to play. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > >> The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule >> should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow >> channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a >> little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how >> they >> got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing >> also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone >> out >> of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I >> see >> what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country >> involving spectrum policy. >> Scriv >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify >>> something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >>> >>> >>> Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC >>> on >>> 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I >>> read >>> on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your >>> base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations >>> in >>> your area? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Michiana Wireless, Inc. >>> John Buwa, President >>> >>> http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com >>> 574-233-7170 >>> >>> "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" >>> >>> *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* >>> >>> >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > On >>> > Behalf Of Charles Wu >>> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM >>> > To: WISPA General List >>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >>> > >>> > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... >>> > >>> > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures >>> > those depending on the type of traffic) >>> > >>> > --- >>> > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >>> > Coming to a City Near You >>> > http://www.winog.com >>> > >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > On >>> > Behalf Of Jeff Booher >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM >>> > To: 'WISPA General List' >>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios a
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
We did it using a telecom attorney, we used Kris Towmey www.lokt.net Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...? Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like they would even know what I was talking about. And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with the power to make a real decision. Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like asking for keys to the space shuttle? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
I used to live in Boca Raton and my ham repeater is still on the air down there. We're also doing some 3650 in Florida as well. Currently we're 4 miles just west of the 150km zone so we're in the clear. I've had numerous calls with higherups at the WTB on this over the last few months. Leon * Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 7/27/2008 6:52 PM: > I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them. What I can't seem > to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite stations. > It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address and a > person's name. > > I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint Communications Orlando, > FL county) using Frequencies 3500 to 5000mhz (All Service Types), and found > nothing but a cancelled point to point license for AT&T. > > A quick search of the FCC site for Sprint's filing # (SESRWL2000101902129) > finds nothing but the mention in the FCC 3650 FSS list. If I were to call > the FCC with that number would they be able to provide me contact > information for that company that pertains to the FSS department? > > I wonder if creating a website that documented all the FSS contact info, > combined with map distance, automatic EIRP / bearing calculations (i.e. the > stuff the FCC talks about in their 3650 document), would be beneficial to > the other WISPs who want to serve the 125 million people who live INSIDE of > these zones. > > It seems silly, like a 5-10W transmitter pointing the opposite direction > would even make a difference - you would think the FCC would have integrated > distance AND antenna direction when it comes to base station registration... > > Florida is flat. At 105km, I would need to have at least a 450 foot tower > or higher on both ends to even send a signal that far. 45 miles ended up > needing over 400ft on both ends. It's not like I want to broadcast 3650 > from the top of a 10,000 foot mountain peak. > > - Original Message - > From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:20 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...? > > > >> Doug Ratcliffe wrote: >> >>> Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? >>> Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km >>> next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that >>> direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be >>> dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even >>> have >>> phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like >>> they would even know what I was talking about. >>> >>> >> I have done several blog posts on this subject: >> >> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/satellite-related-brain-dump.html >> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/80211y-3650-mhz-in-southern-california.html >> >> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu.html >> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu_05.html >> >> Hope that helps. >> >>> And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone >>> with >>> the power to make a real decision. >>> >>> >> Indeed. >> >>> Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their >>> FCC >>> attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be >>> able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like >>> asking >>> for keys to the space shuttle? >>> >>> >> Excellent questions. Hopefully someone here can help. >> >> >> -- >> Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 >> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com >> CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
Yep. We have 4 grandfathered sites in our region. One signed off, one is deactive with the license surendered, one is att, and the 4th is sprint. I hope to have sprint and att signed off in the next 30 days --- airCloud Communications Jerry Richardson 925-260-4119 Sent Mobile -Original Message- From: Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 3:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...? Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like they would even know what I was talking about. And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with the power to make a real decision. Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like asking for keys to the space shuttle? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
Hi Doug...I've been doing this since January and it's been very slow. Comsearch seems to rep many of the FSSes. As soon as I have more info on where we are I'll post it or you can contact me off list. Thanks leon * Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 7/27/2008 6:16 PM: > Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? > Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km > next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that > direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be > dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have > phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like > they would even know what I was talking about. > > And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with > the power to make a real decision. > > Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC > attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be > able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like asking > for keys to the space shuttle? > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
Could have a program or site that shows current usage and encourage they monitor it... or email them an alert when it appears they'll pass their allowance. Maybe an ntop page that breaks down types of usage. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > >I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the >>month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water >>to fill my pool was going to cost me. > > The problem with that analogy is two fold: > > (1) you can physically see 25,000 gallons of water that you intentionally > put in your pool whereas you cannot see the 25Gigs of data that has been > downloaded from your laptop when you download a P2P client and that client > software automatically enables sharing. > > (2) you are presuming that someone INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE INCREASED > USAGE. > My wife works for the local village and she frequently takes calls from > local citizens who have complaints about their water bills. Most > customers > who call in to complain, have something broken that caused the excessive > water charges. For instance, they might have a toilet that won't stop > running. Similar circumstances occur in the internet world when a P2P > program automatically shares data with the world OR when a virus evades > your > computer and spews volumes of data worthless data out to the net. > > Bottom line.. if you institute bit caps be ready for a barrage of excuses > as > to why it wasn't your customer's fault and why you need to reset the > meter. > > - Larry > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
With byte cap tiers (the majority of deployment plans outside of the US, by the way) the most likely "leak" are the youngsters on the home computer network. The solution to "leak shock" is communication...well before the limit is reached if it is climbing rapidly and at, for example, 75% and 100%. The same thing should hold true with cell phone "SMS shock" ...my good friend's teenage daughter engages in 3,000 to 4,000 text messages a month. They quickly switched to a plan that could economically support that. The "communications" on the cell phone was the next monthly bill but ISPs can communicate immediately to their subscribers in the event that a "leak shock" appears to be imminent. That can head off Larry's correct assertion that the customer will claim that the fault is elsewhere. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:52 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality >I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the >month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water >to fill my pool was going to cost me. The problem with that analogy is two fold: (1) you can physically see 25,000 gallons of water that you intentionally put in your pool whereas you cannot see the 25Gigs of data that has been downloaded from your laptop when you download a P2P client and that client software automatically enables sharing. (2) you are presuming that someone INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE INCREASED USAGE. My wife works for the local village and she frequently takes calls from local citizens who have complaints about their water bills. Most customers who call in to complain, have something broken that caused the excessive water charges. For instance, they might have a toilet that won't stop running. Similar circumstances occur in the internet world when a P2P program automatically shares data with the world OR when a virus evades your computer and spews volumes of data worthless data out to the net. Bottom line.. if you institute bit caps be ready for a barrage of excuses as to why it wasn't your customer's fault and why you need to reset the meter. - Larry -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
>I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the >month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water >to fill my pool was going to cost me. The problem with that analogy is two fold: (1) you can physically see 25,000 gallons of water that you intentionally put in your pool whereas you cannot see the 25Gigs of data that has been downloaded from your laptop when you download a P2P client and that client software automatically enables sharing. (2) you are presuming that someone INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE INCREASED USAGE. My wife works for the local village and she frequently takes calls from local citizens who have complaints about their water bills. Most customers who call in to complain, have something broken that caused the excessive water charges. For instance, they might have a toilet that won't stop running. Similar circumstances occur in the internet world when a P2P program automatically shares data with the world OR when a virus evades your computer and spews volumes of data worthless data out to the net. Bottom line.. if you institute bit caps be ready for a barrage of excuses as to why it wasn't your customer's fault and why you need to reset the meter. - Larry WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
Doug Ratcliffe wrote: > Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? > For better or for worse my blog posts seem to be the only material of substance I can find on the subject. I wish that wasn't the case. :) > Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km > next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that > direction - mainly north and northwest. Have you seen appendix D of the ruling ( located at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf%20 ) It mentions the fact that the 150Km zones are for the worse possible configuration. I have a friend of mine who is a math wizard doing some calculations on the zones and figuring out where base stations can be located. Two data sets are of interest 1) Location of a 3650 base station in an exclusion zone 2) Location of a 3650 base station inside multiple (overlapping) exclusion zones. Obviously the zones are far to broad, as existing satellite ground stations are operating in overlapping zones without interference. Naturally when his calculations are complete I will post the full data set. > But according to the FCC, I'd be > dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have > phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like > they would even know what I was talking about. > Naturally. I would suggest networking with individuals from the societies I link to in my blog post. They would seem to be the ones who could provide the technical contacts and validation. > And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with > the power to make a real decision. > Hmmm. I have a sneaky evil plan that just might work. It's a sort of backwards way of doing things. There is a company that offers monitoring service for the 3650Mhz registrations. They sell this to earth station operators. Once someone registers inside the exclusion zone they contact them. I discovered this the other day and am now unable to locate it. Some people to talk to might be http://www.suirg.org/ ? Think of them ass the satellite mafia? :) For now I have tabled pursuit of spectrum access until any significant events occur, or the availability of 802.11y equipment. Whichever comes first. > Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC > attorney of record? That's an interesting question. In my original post on this subject to the list someone mentioned they had negotiated access. When I asked for further detail I didn't receive any more information. > Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be > able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Unfortunately all the FCC spells out is a requirement for negotiation in good faith. I am not sure what on earth "in good faith" means. > Is this like asking > for keys to the space shuttle? > You could probably get the nuclear launch codes that a marine carries for the President easier then spectrum access. I would love to be proven wrong. I sent a letter to the two names mentioned on the ruling, regarding the subject of gaining spectrum access. A copy of the letter can be found here: http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/fcc-engagement.html I have yet to hear back from either of them. :) If I obtain any more information from the various information loops I'm plugged into, I will blog it and post here. Also I am going to track down that registration monitoring service now. Might be far easier to simply register and have them come to you? -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
In a couple years NASA's not going to be using the shuttles anymore, so they'll be easier to get a hold of. ;-) -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:16 PM Subject: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...? > Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? > Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km > next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that > direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be > dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have > phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like > they would even know what I was talking about. > > And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone > with > the power to make a real decision. > > Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their > FCC > attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be > able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like > asking > for keys to the space shuttle? > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them. What I can't seem to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite stations. It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address and a person's name. I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint Communications Orlando, FL county) using Frequencies 3500 to 5000mhz (All Service Types), and found nothing but a cancelled point to point license for AT&T. A quick search of the FCC site for Sprint's filing # (SESRWL2000101902129) finds nothing but the mention in the FCC 3650 FSS list. If I were to call the FCC with that number would they be able to provide me contact information for that company that pertains to the FSS department? I wonder if creating a website that documented all the FSS contact info, combined with map distance, automatic EIRP / bearing calculations (i.e. the stuff the FCC talks about in their 3650 document), would be beneficial to the other WISPs who want to serve the 125 million people who live INSIDE of these zones. It seems silly, like a 5-10W transmitter pointing the opposite direction would even make a difference - you would think the FCC would have integrated distance AND antenna direction when it comes to base station registration... Florida is flat. At 105km, I would need to have at least a 450 foot tower or higher on both ends to even send a signal that far. 45 miles ended up needing over 400ft on both ends. It's not like I want to broadcast 3650 from the top of a 10,000 foot mountain peak. - Original Message - From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...? > Doug Ratcliffe wrote: >> Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? >> Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km >> next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that >> direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be >> dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even >> have >> phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like >> they would even know what I was talking about. >> > > I have done several blog posts on this subject: > > http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/satellite-related-brain-dump.html > http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/80211y-3650-mhz-in-southern-california.html > > http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu.html > http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu_05.html > > Hope that helps. >> And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone >> with >> the power to make a real decision. >> > > Indeed. >> Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their >> FCC >> attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be >> able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like >> asking >> for keys to the space shuttle? >> > > Excellent questions. Hopefully someone here can help. > > > -- > Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 > http://charlesnw.blogspot.com > CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
Doug Ratcliffe wrote: > Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? > Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km > next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that > direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be > dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have > phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like > they would even know what I was talking about. > I have done several blog posts on this subject: http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/satellite-related-brain-dump.html http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/80211y-3650-mhz-in-southern-california.html http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu.html http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu_05.html Hope that helps. > And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with > the power to make a real decision. > Indeed. > Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC > attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be > able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like asking > for keys to the space shuttle? > Excellent questions. Hopefully someone here can help. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like they would even know what I was talking about. And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with the power to make a real decision. Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC attorney of record? Is the consent more like a contract? Would they be able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)? Is this like asking for keys to the space shuttle? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Shannon theorm states that a channel capacity is constrained by the following equation: C=B log(2)(1+S/N) Where the capacity of the channel is C, B is the bandwidth of the channel, S is signal and N is noise. Rearranging terms and holding some things constant. Lets consider noise and signal =1 (constant power) then Channel capacity is directly proportional to bandwidth. Or if we make B = 1 and noise =1 then Channel capacity is log proportional to signal level. So, want more channel capacity; use more signal strength or a wider bandwidth. But expanding either one will give you more capacity. The number you will actually get for C if you compute it is much more than you really do get with real radios. That says to me that there is a lot of room for improvement in radio technology. But if you try wider bandwidths alone, that method will allow more noise in the channel. P=kTBr Where T is temperature and B is bandwidth and P is noise power (I think k is boltsmans constantant and r is resistance). No free lunch there. So going to a wider bandwidth alone will cause the S/N ratio to lower reducing capacity. So, you gotta increase the signal a certain amount to overcome the noise. - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand when you apply 20 dBm to > channels of different widths, the same gross power is spread out. Each Hz > receives less power in a wider channel. This rule allows the larger > channels to not face the power punishment.e > > Spectral efficiency has little to do with the channel width and more with > the technology. You can use an Atheros chipset to produce channel widths > of > 5, 10, 20, and 40 MHz, but they all traffic roughly the same bits/Hz. > > Squashing the entire band is something that'll happen when you're given > such > small bands and attempting to push big data over it. That's where the > contention requirements and synch of some kind come in to play. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > >> The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule >> should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow >> channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a >> little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how >> they >> got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing >> also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone >> out >> of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I >> see >> what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country >> involving spectrum policy. >> Scriv >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify >>> something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >>> >>> >>> Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC >>> on >>> 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I >>> read >>> on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your >>> base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations >>> in >>> your area? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Michiana Wireless, Inc. >>> John Buwa, President >>> >>> http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com >>> 574-233-7170 >>> >>> "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" >>> >>> *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* >>> >>> >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > On >>> > Behalf Of Charles Wu >>> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM >>> > To: WISPA General List >>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >>> > >>> > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... >>> > >>> > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures >>> > those depending on the type of traffic) >>> > >>> > --- >>> > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >>> > Coming to a City Near You >>> > http://www.winog.com >>> > >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > On >>> > Behalf Of Jeff Booher >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM >>> > To: 'WISPA General List' >>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere?
I believe our only chance at mobile devices is TV whitespaces. 900 is too full of other things and 3.65 doesn't have enough penetration. There is at least one other company working on non-802.11 non 802.16 equipment for 3.65 GHz and 5 GHz with all of these features and 900 MHz with some (I'm trying to push them to have the complete set available here too). We're talking MIMO, 3.5 bits/s real throughput, GPS sync, etc. I'm not to reveal their identity, but I will say it's not a DIY system (hey, I use Mikrotik too). It's also going to be far cheaper than 802.16 based solutions. Yes, it's another proprietary, but as others have pointed out, WiMAX in the USA is basically proprietary too. I am watching this REAL closely and am awaiting beta testing all their new gear. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere? > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:12 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> We can hack the MAC on atheros based chipsets. > > > If "hacking th MAC" is your thing I guess you can. I would rather pay for > companies to produce the properly designed and tested radio platforms and > sell Internet access to my customers. If I wanted to "hack the MAC" I > would > join the local amateur radio club where many of us could "hack the MAC" > together and learn from each other about radio theory and such. Sometimes > I > wish I had the time, money and patience (not to mention engineering > background) to do this. What I know is how to deliver Internet to my > customers so "hacking the MAC" is probably not a priority for me and most > WISPs out there. > > >> >> >> Well, could, if we could get some funding together and some sharp >> minds... > > > > I think that is what vendors are supposed to do. I pay them to build the > radios, test them and make improvements. My mind is plenty sharp but I am > not an engineer of radio technology and design. If I wanted to do that > then > I would learn those things and build equipment to sell to people who build > networks and sell service (like WISPs). > > >> >> >> MIMO interests me too. Again, the same "hackable" chipsets... > > > MIMO is a big part of what WiMax brings to the table. It is not that WiMax > is MIMO or vice versa. It is that the WiMax vendors have spent the time > and > money to properly design MIMO into WISP type networks. It is not cheap but > it is very good. Being able to process the signals of multiple antennas to > improve delivery and reception of signals is an amazing piece of technical > wizardry that does not break the laws of physics but it takes them to the > edge of what is possible. > > Delivering the best possible link in all circumstances is something I want > in my network. I am going to be making the move to WiMax soon to be able > to > do this. I want highly reliable networks that people can trust for voice > services as well as data. I want to have mobility in my network. I want my > cell phone on my hip to connect to my own network. I intend to make this > happen and bring all the things I have learned in a decade of Internet > access business into this new mobile data and voice world. I believe WISPs > have a unique opportunity to skip past the cellular operators who are just > now learning what IP is all about. We know it. We do not have to support a > legacy technology that is outdated as the cell carriers are right now. > WiMax > is what the cell companies want in 2 more generations of their networks. > We > can build it now. Of course some of you may just want to "hack the MAC". I > think I will go and upstage the national cell carriers instead. > Scriv > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:04 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available >> anywhere? >> >> >> > And if you could get then what you do with them?? Wimax mini-pci are >> > client >> > side only there is no way to use them as a Wimax base stations. The >> > protocol >> > does not allow for it and there is allot more to a base then a radio >> > and >> > software. This is not to say someone could not hack a radio and hal to >> do >> > something that is not Wimax :) But they would still need a license from >> > Wavesat to do this. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pip
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Right, Mike. The FCC's thinking appears to be power density and not just straight power. This is why, with the same power, you will see roughly a 3dB RX increase from cutting the channel size in half. -Hal -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:56 -0500 I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand when you apply 20 dBm to channels of different widths, the same gross power is spread out. Each Hz receives less power in a wider channel. This rule allows the larger channels to not face the power punishment. Spectral efficiency has little to do with the channel width and more with the technology. You can use an Atheros chipset to produce channel widths of 5, 10, 20, and 40 MHz, but they all traffic roughly the same bits/Hz. Squashing the entire band is something that'll happen when you're given such small bands and attempting to push big data over it. That's where the contention requirements and synch of some kind come in to play. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule > should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow > channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a > little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how they > got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing > also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone out > of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I see > what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country > involving spectrum policy. > Scriv > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify >> something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> >> Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on >> 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I >> read >> on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your >> base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations >> in >> your area? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michiana Wireless, Inc. >> John Buwa, President >> >> http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com >> 574-233-7170 >> >> "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" >> >> *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* >> >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Charles Wu >> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... >> > >> > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures >> > those depending on the type of traffic) >> > >> > --- >> > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >> > Coming to a City Near You >> > http://www.winog.com >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Jeff Booher >> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM >> > To: 'WISPA General List' >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > >> > >> > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar >> > GPS >> > settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues >> > of >> > interference. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Jeff Booher >> > >> > Channel Manager, North America >> > www.apertonet.com >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > 24/7: 206-455-4950 >> > >> > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or >> > work >> > product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, >> > reliance or >> > distribution by others without express permission is strictly >> > prohibited. If >> > you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and >> > delete all >> > copies. >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM >> > To: 'WISPA General List' >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > John, >> > >> > >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same >> > >GPS >> > sync, so a
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand when you apply 20 dBm to channels of different widths, the same gross power is spread out. Each Hz receives less power in a wider channel. This rule allows the larger channels to not face the power punishment. Spectral efficiency has little to do with the channel width and more with the technology. You can use an Atheros chipset to produce channel widths of 5, 10, 20, and 40 MHz, but they all traffic roughly the same bits/Hz. Squashing the entire band is something that'll happen when you're given such small bands and attempting to push big data over it. That's where the contention requirements and synch of some kind come in to play. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule > should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow > channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a > little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how they > got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing > also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone out > of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I see > what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country > involving spectrum policy. > Scriv > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify >> something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> >> Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on >> 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I >> read >> on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your >> base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations >> in >> your area? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michiana Wireless, Inc. >> John Buwa, President >> >> http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com >> 574-233-7170 >> >> "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" >> >> *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* >> >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Charles Wu >> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... >> > >> > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures >> > those depending on the type of traffic) >> > >> > --- >> > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >> > Coming to a City Near You >> > http://www.winog.com >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Jeff Booher >> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM >> > To: 'WISPA General List' >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > >> > >> > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar >> > GPS >> > settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues >> > of >> > interference. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Jeff Booher >> > >> > Channel Manager, North America >> > www.apertonet.com >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > 24/7: 206-455-4950 >> > >> > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or >> > work >> > product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, >> > reliance or >> > distribution by others without express permission is strictly >> > prohibited. If >> > you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and >> > delete all >> > copies. >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM >> > To: 'WISPA General List' >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> > >> > John, >> > >> > >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same >> > >GPS >> > sync, so all WiMax gear with the appropriate timing settings equal can >> > be >> > timed together. Apparently the FCC is requiring it for the equipment >> > to be >> > certified. >> > >> > Daniel White >> > 3-dB Networks >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of John Rock >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:37 PM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water to fill my pool was going to cost me. I have 60 customers that I loose money on every month. I can afford the implementation for what I will gain in revenue or gain back in profitability; so I'm moving in that direction. 70 % of my customers said they would prefer it. I expect that when it's implemented more like 90 % will like it and the other 10 % can pay for what they really want - 24 X 7 usage of large amounts of bandwidth or not. I either need to make money on the account or not have it. I'm not a charity and not subsidized to provide it at a loss. Dave Hulsebus Matt wrote: >> usage based means tiers of prices... No matter what you tell people or how >> you warn them, if your bill this month is $100 and last month it was $25, >> they WILL BE ANGRY. >> >> Further, automating systems to bill per gig is kind of a pain. >> >> The answer, then, I guess is... convenience. >> > > We were looking at throttling the over quotta users at peak times > based on a 7-day window of usage. > > Matt > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 4:18 PM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
My same way of thinking, what the fcc was thinking? gino -Original Message- From: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how they got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone out of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I see what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country involving spectrum policy. Scriv On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify > something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on > 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I read > on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your > base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations in > your area? > > Thanks, > > Michiana Wireless, Inc. > John Buwa, President > > http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com > 574-233-7170 > > "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" > > *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Charles Wu > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... > > > > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures > > those depending on the type of traffic) > > > > --- > > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > > Coming to a City Near You > > http://www.winog.com > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jeff Booher > > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > > > > > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar > > GPS > > settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues > > of > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Booher > > > > Channel Manager, North America > > www.apertonet.com > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 24/7: 206-455-4950 > > > > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or > > work > > product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > > reliance or > > distribution by others without express permission is strictly > > prohibited. If > > you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and > > delete all > > copies. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > John, > > > > >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same > > >GPS > > sync, so all WiMax gear with the appropriate timing settings equal can > > be > > timed together. Apparently the FCC is requiring it for the equipment > > to be > > certified. > > > > Daniel White > > 3-dB Networks > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of John Rock > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:37 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > I would disagree. WiMAX should be a goal for most WISPs to get into > > their > > networks over the next 1-3 years. > > Why??? Roaming!!! It will be the real deal and the WISP market, if they > > do > > the right things, will be able to setup roaming agreements to exist > > with > > each other all over the USA. > > CPE will be available in all sorts of devices between 2.3 and 3.8 GHz > > and > > yes 3.65 falls in that window. Device frequency scanning will be > > dictated by > > > > availabilty. So if the WISP Market, small and large, build compatable > > 3.65 > > networks with viable roaming agreements with the right service flows > > everyone could be happy. Keep in mind the right things need to fall in > > place > > > > for this to happen. > > > > Hurdles... > > -CPE that really are interoperable and in many types of devic
Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere?
Hacking and atheros chipset wouldnt be the same as hacking a wimax chipset gino -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere? We can hack the MAC on atheros based chipsets. Well, could, if we could get some funding together and some sharp minds... MIMO interests me too. Again, the same "hackable" chipsets... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere? > And if you could get then what you do with them?? Wimax mini-pci are > client > side only there is no way to use them as a Wimax base stations. The > protocol > does not allow for it and there is allot more to a base then a radio and > software. This is not to say someone could not hack a radio and hal to do > something that is not Wimax :) But they would still need a license from > Wavesat to do this. > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how they got this so backward. Maximum channel sizes would have been a good thing also to stop someone from building a radio which could squash everyone out of the band in one sector or omni alone. I am scared sometimes when I see what comes from those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country involving spectrum policy. Scriv On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify > something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on > 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I read > on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your > base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations in > your area? > > Thanks, > > Michiana Wireless, Inc. > John Buwa, President > > http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com > 574-233-7170 > > "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" > > *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Charles Wu > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... > > > > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures > > those depending on the type of traffic) > > > > --- > > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > > Coming to a City Near You > > http://www.winog.com > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jeff Booher > > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > > > > > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar > > GPS > > settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues > > of > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Booher > > > > Channel Manager, North America > > www.apertonet.com > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 24/7: 206-455-4950 > > > > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or > > work > > product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > > reliance or > > distribution by others without express permission is strictly > > prohibited. If > > you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and > > delete all > > copies. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > John, > > > > >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same > > >GPS > > sync, so all WiMax gear with the appropriate timing settings equal can > > be > > timed together. Apparently the FCC is requiring it for the equipment > > to be > > certified. > > > > Daniel White > > 3-dB Networks > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of John Rock > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:37 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > I would disagree. WiMAX should be a goal for most WISPs to get into > > their > > networks over the next 1-3 years. > > Why??? Roaming!!! It will be the real deal and the WISP market, if they > > do > > the right things, will be able to setup roaming agreements to exist > > with > > each other all over the USA. > > CPE will be available in all sorts of devices between 2.3 and 3.8 GHz > > and > > yes 3.65 falls in that window. Device frequency scanning will be > > dictated by > > > > availabilty. So if the WISP Market, small and large, build compatable > > 3.65 > > networks with viable roaming agreements with the right service flows > > everyone could be happy. Keep in mind the right things need to fall in > > place > > > > for this to happen. > > > > Hurdles... > > -CPE that really are interoperable and in many types of devices. > > -Base Station RF in a cellular sence. That equals build outs with > > competitive priced Base stations in mobile mind set. > > -Base stations from different manufactureers that can GPS sync with > > each > > other so UL/DL ra
Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere?
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:12 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We can hack the MAC on atheros based chipsets. If "hacking th MAC" is your thing I guess you can. I would rather pay for companies to produce the properly designed and tested radio platforms and sell Internet access to my customers. If I wanted to "hack the MAC" I would join the local amateur radio club where many of us could "hack the MAC" together and learn from each other about radio theory and such. Sometimes I wish I had the time, money and patience (not to mention engineering background) to do this. What I know is how to deliver Internet to my customers so "hacking the MAC" is probably not a priority for me and most WISPs out there. > > > Well, could, if we could get some funding together and some sharp minds... I think that is what vendors are supposed to do. I pay them to build the radios, test them and make improvements. My mind is plenty sharp but I am not an engineer of radio technology and design. If I wanted to do that then I would learn those things and build equipment to sell to people who build networks and sell service (like WISPs). > > > MIMO interests me too. Again, the same "hackable" chipsets... MIMO is a big part of what WiMax brings to the table. It is not that WiMax is MIMO or vice versa. It is that the WiMax vendors have spent the time and money to properly design MIMO into WISP type networks. It is not cheap but it is very good. Being able to process the signals of multiple antennas to improve delivery and reception of signals is an amazing piece of technical wizardry that does not break the laws of physics but it takes them to the edge of what is possible. Delivering the best possible link in all circumstances is something I want in my network. I am going to be making the move to WiMax soon to be able to do this. I want highly reliable networks that people can trust for voice services as well as data. I want to have mobility in my network. I want my cell phone on my hip to connect to my own network. I intend to make this happen and bring all the things I have learned in a decade of Internet access business into this new mobile data and voice world. I believe WISPs have a unique opportunity to skip past the cellular operators who are just now learning what IP is all about. We know it. We do not have to support a legacy technology that is outdated as the cell carriers are right now. WiMax is what the cell companies want in 2 more generations of their networks. We can build it now. Of course some of you may just want to "hack the MAC". I think I will go and upstage the national cell carriers instead. Scriv > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available > anywhere? > > > > And if you could get then what you do with them?? Wimax mini-pci are > > client > > side only there is no way to use them as a Wimax base stations. The > > protocol > > does not allow for it and there is allot more to a base then a radio and > > software. This is not to say someone could not hack a radio and hal to > do > > something that is not Wimax :) But they would still need a license from > > Wavesat to do this. > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
> usage based means tiers of prices... No matter what you tell people or how > you warn them, if your bill this month is $100 and last month it was $25, > they WILL BE ANGRY. > > Further, automating systems to bill per gig is kind of a pain. > > The answer, then, I guess is... convenience. We were looking at throttling the over quotta users at peak times based on a 7-day window of usage. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere?
We can hack the MAC on atheros based chipsets. Well, could, if we could get some funding together and some sharp minds... MIMO interests me too. Again, the same "hackable" chipsets... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere? > And if you could get then what you do with them?? Wimax mini-pci are > client > side only there is no way to use them as a Wimax base stations. The > protocol > does not allow for it and there is allot more to a base then a radio and > software. This is not to say someone could not hack a radio and hal to do > something that is not Wimax :) But they would still need a license from > Wavesat to do this. > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
usage based means tiers of prices... No matter what you tell people or how you warn them, if your bill this month is $100 and last month it was $25, they WILL BE ANGRY. Further, automating systems to bill per gig is kind of a pain. The answer, then, I guess is... convenience. - Original Message - From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > >>From a business standpoint, I do not see why everyone is so against a >>usage > based system? > > Scottie > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Can anyone explain why the rule would encourage spectrum hogging?Use wider channel = get more eirp??? - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify > something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on > 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I > read > on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your > base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations in > your area? > > Thanks, > > Michiana Wireless, Inc. > John Buwa, President > > http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com > 574-233-7170 > > "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" > > *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Charles Wu >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... >> >> Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures >> those depending on the type of traffic) >> >> --- >> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >> Coming to a City Near You >> http://www.winog.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Jeff Booher >> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM >> To: 'WISPA General List' >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> >> >> Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar >> GPS >> settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues >> of >> interference. >> >> >> >> >> Jeff Booher >> >> Channel Manager, North America >> www.apertonet.com >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 24/7: 206-455-4950 >> >> This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or >> work >> product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, >> reliance or >> distribution by others without express permission is strictly >> prohibited. If >> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and >> delete all >> copies. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM >> To: 'WISPA General List' >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> John, >> >> >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same >> >GPS >> sync, so all WiMax gear with the appropriate timing settings equal can >> be >> timed together. Apparently the FCC is requiring it for the equipment >> to be >> certified. >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of John Rock >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:37 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field >> >> I would disagree. WiMAX should be a goal for most WISPs to get into >> their >> networks over the next 1-3 years. >> Why??? Roaming!!! It will be the real deal and the WISP market, if they >> do >> the right things, will be able to setup roaming agreements to exist >> with >> each other all over the USA. >> CPE will be available in all sorts of devices between 2.3 and 3.8 GHz >> and >> yes 3.65 falls in that window. Device frequency scanning will be >> dictated by >> >> availabilty. So if the WISP Market, small and large, build compatable >> 3.65 >> networks with viable roaming agreements with the right service flows >> everyone could be happy. Keep in mind the right things need to fall in >> place >> >> for this to happen. >> >> Hurdles... >> -CPE that really are interoperable and in many types of devices. >> -Base Station RF in a cellular sence. That equals build outs with >> competitive priced Base stations in mobile mind set. >> -Base stations from different manufactureers that can GPS sync with >> each >> other so UL/DL ratios can co exist in a given area. To my knowledge >> this >> does not exist yet but would be critical to help with interference in >> the >> 3.65 GHz band. The WiMAX forum needs to make sure this does exist >> between >> base stations along with the interoperability standards they are >> developing. >> >> The GPS peice may exist but I have yet to see in in the standerds. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John Rock >> Wireless Connections >> Director of Operations - Senior Engin
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
We have one very large customer that uses 60 gig per month. They pay the same price for that that they would for a t-1 in this area. $350 per month. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > Well, what you have to do is include a number of gigs that cover typical > and > slightly above typical usage. Structure it so only power users or P2P > users > would top that usage. > > For some new projects I'm working on, I'm considering a 50 gig package for > $50/month. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 10:38 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > > >> More on this...Many of us have not already implemented this because of >> our >> competition from cable and dsl. Same for me! I think the the FCC has >> finally >> provided ALL broadband providers a reason to implemente this(as we can't >> control traffic) although it will be a major blow to the U.S. broadband >> penetration. I know I have been waiting for it since 2002. Let the NEW >> games >> begin! >> >> Scott >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Scottie Arnett >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 10:04 PM >> To: 'WISPA General List' >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality >> >> >> Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a >> usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet >> they >> (FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance. >> >> Just my 1 pence. >> Scottie >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Larry Yunker >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 11:37 AM >> To: 'WISPA General List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality >> >> >> It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for >> its P2P throttling. >> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos >> es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html >> >> >> >> It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing >> decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P >> traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Larry Yunker >> >> Network Consultant >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> --- >> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 >> 4:18 PM >> >> --- >> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> >> Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check >> out >> www.info-ed.com for information. >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> --- >> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 >> 4:18 PM >> >> --- >> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> >> Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. >> Check out www.info-ed.com for information. >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -
Re: [WISPA] Weird signal levels
I've seen both things happen. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mark McElvy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mikrotik discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 12:15 PM Subject: [WISPA] Weird signal levels > We had another electrical storm last night. One of my AP's is acting > weird. It is still running but the receive signals are up in the high > 80's and low 90's now instead of 60's and 70's. They are also kinda > bouncing 20db. I am on this tower at my house and could not connect last > night or this morning but now I am at my office and see that my radio at > home has connected. > > > > I at first thought the lightening deafened my radio but I am kinda > thinkin moisture now. Thoughts? > > > > Mark McElvy > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
I definitely do not agree with what thay are doing to Comcast, except that Comcast right out lied about it. The FCC should not be allowed to tell me how I run my network. If they are going to do that, then they may as well make internet regulated and make internet tariff's. I think the FCC would LOVE to regulate the internet(which they already do in some respects), but Congress keeps shooting it down. If people do not like that I limit p2p, they do have another choice in another ISP, it is not like I am forcing something on them that they HAVE to take. The underlying problem I see with it is that p2p uses a ton of connections, which most wireless equipment does not handle well. Cable and DSL seem to not have as much of a problem with it except for the bandwidth usage it creates. If I am not allowed to "control" my network, then I see no other alternative but to go to a usage based model and I think cable and dsl will also. AT&T has already sent emails to some of their customers saying they are going to that model and Time Warner is experimenting with that model in Texas. I am in a rural area and bandwidth is not cheap here. I pay over $400/meg. I have about %20 of my customers using the most bandwidth with bittorrents and gnutella. I do not block these, but I severly limit their transfer speeds and connections. If the FCC goes through with this, what next. They will telling me that I can't "limit" it here. The RIAA and MPAA would have a field day is this area. The people do not understand what they are doing is illegal...they think that if it is there then there is nothing wrong with getting it. >From a business standpoint, I do not see why everyone is so against a usage based system? Scottie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality >Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a >usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet >they (FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance. I would have to disagree. It would appear that in this case, the FCC would be treating an internet provider similar to a cable-tv provider. I think that the FCC could rely on it's holding in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC to support it's "need" to interfere with internet provider's freedom to contract. In Turner, the court held that it "has an independent interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcasters." It would seem that it is following that same tenor when it is forcing internet providers to allow "equal footing" for all services. I personally don't agree with this notion, I think that a greater harm will flow because the number of potential internet providers could be reduced from such drastic measures or in the alternative the cost of internet services could skyrocket due to bit-caps. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 4:18 PM --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client?
Until the SWM came out, you needed all 4 cables to be able to power a multiswitch, enabling more than 4 receivers. I don't have any experience and very little knowledge of the SWM. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > That's good stuff. I wonder why we are still running two coax' on all of > our installs. Gotta ask our DTV trainers about that. Still, none of > these > bands overlap bands we are using so that is a good thing. > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 8:15 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > > >> http://82.165.144.139/dtvkaku/launch_02.asp >> >> about 3:25 in the video. >> >> 250 - 750 MHz >> 950 - 1450 MHz >> 1650 - 2150 MHz >> >> That's what travels over the wires. The BBC would only make a difference >> on >> the 3" cable from the BBC to the receiver. >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:13 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >> >> >>>I think it does as far as the frequencies go. They have added a little >>> frequency convertor box to the receive end to allow the receiver to >>> select >>> which block of IF frequencies it wants. Two inputs allows four blocks >>> of >>> frequencies plus LNB switching would allow up to 8 different LNBs to be >>> used >>> with 2 coax' cables. >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >>> >>> That doesn't apply to the new 5 LNB systems, but I don't have the time to figure out what the new ones are. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > Directv IF frequencies. > Lower IF 950-1450 MHZ > Upper IF 1650-2150 MHz > > So, we are not in the middle of either of those bands. > The IF signal should be stronger than any spur an SM or SU could > produce. > > - Original Message - > From: "Larry A Weidig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:25 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > > >> We have seen this probably a couple of times ourselves. For us >> in every instance it was the power supply causing the interference. >> Easy enough to test, unplug the radio but leave the power adapter in >> the >> outlet connected to nothing. If still interference you can try >> swapping >> the power supply or move one of the two to a different circuit if >> possible. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >> Behalf Of Jim Patient >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:03 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >> >> Are you using the satellite ground block? >> Is your ethernet cable running up with there cable? If so is it >> shielded? >> >> We have a number of installs literally on the same mast because they >> didn't want a second mast. We've never had an issue. We run our own >> ground from the radio to a ground rod and try to keep the cable away >> from the dish cable. >> >> Matt wrote: I had a customer call. She said she had some time so she was going >> to call before her satellite guy was going to. The customer has been >> installed for a couple years, but she swears that her 'pixelated' satellite >> reception on channels 3,5 and 9 are due to my system. The satellite folks >> replaced the dish, and head, and finally blamed my equipment mount a couple feet >> to the side of their dish. This customer claims that when pixelation >> occurs, she can unplug our equipment and the problems 'disappears'. Lets see, >> 2.4Ghz and what, 6 or 11G for the dish tv. don't see where on the RF front >> there is a remote possibility of interference. The coax goes around the >> house, >>>
Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client?
That's good stuff. I wonder why we are still running two coax' on all of our installs. Gotta ask our DTV trainers about that. Still, none of these bands overlap bands we are using so that is a good thing. - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > http://82.165.144.139/dtvkaku/launch_02.asp > > about 3:25 in the video. > > 250 - 750 MHz > 950 - 1450 MHz > 1650 - 2150 MHz > > That's what travels over the wires. The BBC would only make a difference > on > the 3" cable from the BBC to the receiver. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > > >>I think it does as far as the frequencies go. They have added a little >> frequency convertor box to the receive end to allow the receiver to >> select >> which block of IF frequencies it wants. Two inputs allows four blocks of >> frequencies plus LNB switching would allow up to 8 different LNBs to be >> used >> with 2 coax' cables. >> - Original Message - >> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >> >> >>> That doesn't apply to the new 5 LNB systems, but I don't have the time >>> to >>> figure out what the new ones are. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:31 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >>> >>> Directv IF frequencies. Lower IF 950-1450 MHZ Upper IF 1650-2150 MHz So, we are not in the middle of either of those bands. The IF signal should be stronger than any spur an SM or SU could produce. - Original Message - From: "Larry A Weidig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > We have seen this probably a couple of times ourselves. For us > in every instance it was the power supply causing the interference. > Easy enough to test, unplug the radio but leave the power adapter in > the > outlet connected to nothing. If still interference you can try > swapping > the power supply or move one of the two to a different circuit if > possible. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > Behalf Of Jim Patient > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:03 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > > Are you using the satellite ground block? > Is your ethernet cable running up with there cable? If so is it > shielded? > > We have a number of installs literally on the same mast because they > didn't want a second mast. We've never had an issue. We run our own > ground from the radio to a ground rod and try to keep the cable away > from the dish cable. > > Matt wrote: >>> I had a customer call. She said she had some time so she was going > to call >>> before her satellite guy was going to. The customer has been > installed for >>> a couple years, but she swears that her 'pixelated' satellite > reception on >>> channels 3,5 and 9 are due to my system. The satellite folks > replaced the >>> dish, and head, and finally blamed my equipment mount a couple feet > to the >>> side of their dish. This customer claims that when pixelation > occurs, she >>> can unplug our equipment and the problems 'disappears'. Lets see, > 2.4Ghz >>> and what, 6 or 11G for the dish tv. don't see where on the RF front > there >>> is a remote possibility of interference. The coax goes around the > house, >>> our cat5 goes thru the crawlspace. Anyone ever have these kinds of > issues? >>> The customer expects me to re-install equipment on the other side of > the >>> house for free? Any suggestions? >>> >> >> Can you lock the ethernet on a different rate and see if it makes a > difference? >> >> Matt >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > > >>
Re: [WISPA] OLSR mesh with Demarctech
the OLSR folks have a pretty responsive mailing list - you might try going straight to them. - Japhy On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 8:21 PM, ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi- > > I'm trying to get familiar with setting up wireless mesh using the > Demarctech products. I'm very experienced with Tropos and Cisco outdoor > mesh, but the OLSR with its config files and lack of much status info is > throwing me for a loop. There must be someone around who has done this and > I sure could use a talkin' to! > > I'm doing a lot of wireless out in a big biker venue/campground in Sturgis > South Dakota beginning next week and wanted to try something less costly > than Tropos. > > Anyone out there able to help? > > Thanks > > Ralph > http://Brightlan.net > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client?
http://82.165.144.139/dtvkaku/launch_02.asp about 3:25 in the video. 250 - 750 MHz 950 - 1450 MHz 1650 - 2150 MHz That's what travels over the wires. The BBC would only make a difference on the 3" cable from the BBC to the receiver. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >I think it does as far as the frequencies go. They have added a little > frequency convertor box to the receive end to allow the receiver to select > which block of IF frequencies it wants. Two inputs allows four blocks of > frequencies plus LNB switching would allow up to 8 different LNBs to be > used > with 2 coax' cables. > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? > > >> That doesn't apply to the new 5 LNB systems, but I don't have the time to >> figure out what the new ones are. >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >> >> >>> Directv IF frequencies. >>> Lower IF 950-1450 MHZ >>> Upper IF 1650-2150 MHz >>> >>> So, we are not in the middle of either of those bands. >>> The IF signal should be stronger than any spur an SM or SU could >>> produce. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Larry A Weidig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:25 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? >>> >>> We have seen this probably a couple of times ourselves. For us in every instance it was the power supply causing the interference. Easy enough to test, unplug the radio but leave the power adapter in the outlet connected to nothing. If still interference you can try swapping the power supply or move one of the two to a different circuit if possible. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Patient Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Direct TV interference from 802.11b client? Are you using the satellite ground block? Is your ethernet cable running up with there cable? If so is it shielded? We have a number of installs literally on the same mast because they didn't want a second mast. We've never had an issue. We run our own ground from the radio to a ground rod and try to keep the cable away from the dish cable. Matt wrote: >> I had a customer call. She said she had some time so she was going to call >> before her satellite guy was going to. The customer has been installed for >> a couple years, but she swears that her 'pixelated' satellite reception on >> channels 3,5 and 9 are due to my system. The satellite folks replaced the >> dish, and head, and finally blamed my equipment mount a couple feet to the >> side of their dish. This customer claims that when pixelation occurs, she >> can unplug our equipment and the problems 'disappears'. Lets see, 2.4Ghz >> and what, 6 or 11G for the dish tv. don't see where on the RF front there >> is a remote possibility of interference. The coax goes around the house, >> our cat5 goes thru the crawlspace. Anyone ever have these kinds of issues? >> The customer expects me to re-install equipment on the other side of the >> house for free? Any suggestions? >> > > Can you lock the ethernet on a different rate and see if it makes a difference? > > Matt > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.w
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
>Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a >usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet >they (FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance. I would have to disagree. It would appear that in this case, the FCC would be treating an internet provider similar to a cable-tv provider. I think that the FCC could rely on it's holding in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC to support it's "need" to interfere with internet provider's freedom to contract. In Turner, the court held that it "has an independent interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcasters." It would seem that it is following that same tenor when it is forcing internet providers to allow "equal footing" for all services. I personally don't agree with this notion, I think that a greater harm will flow because the number of potential internet providers could be reduced from such drastic measures or in the alternative the cost of internet services could skyrocket due to bit-caps. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
Well, what you have to do is include a number of gigs that cover typical and slightly above typical usage. Structure it so only power users or P2P users would top that usage. For some new projects I'm working on, I'm considering a 50 gig package for $50/month. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > More on this...Many of us have not already implemented this because of our > competition from cable and dsl. Same for me! I think the the FCC has > finally > provided ALL broadband providers a reason to implemente this(as we can't > control traffic) although it will be a major blow to the U.S. broadband > penetration. I know I have been waiting for it since 2002. Let the NEW > games > begin! > > Scott > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Scottie Arnett > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 10:04 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > > > Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a > usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet > they > (FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance. > > Just my 1 pence. > Scottie > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Larry Yunker > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 11:37 AM > To: 'WISPA General List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality > > > It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for > its P2P throttling. > > > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos > es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html > > > > It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing > decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P > traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks. > > > > Regards, > > Larry Yunker > > Network Consultant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 > 4:18 PM > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out > www.info-ed.com for information. > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 7/26/2008 > 4:18 PM > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. > Check out www.info-ed.com for information. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Freespace Systems Introduces the first1, 000mW High Performance 802.11b/g Radio
Agreed. That's why I use higher powered cards is so that I regular power level at high modulation. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Freespace Systems Introduces the first1,000mW High Performance 802.11b/g Radio > I'd like to add that in the USA, its really only good to use a 1watt radio > for the CPE side, taking advantage of PtP rules, for long distances. > > Using the full 30db at the AP is like death, if we remember back to the > Metrocom days. Installing full power radios with 6 db omnis spewing noise > in > all directions, which is rarely needed for any deployment. Its usually > better to get the gain from the antenna. Also remember the requirement to > reduce AP tx power 1db for every 3 db of antenna gain for the 3 to 1 rule. > I'm a little surprised this was released by Valemount, considering Lonnie > had always been big on using low power cards. > > However, where these Higher power cards are good will be for long range > PtP > radios at high modulation. I have not checked the specs but I'm sure > you'll > find that the power output is less in high modulation G mode, giving a > little more room to add higher gain antennas before dropping the power to > much.. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:37 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Freespace Systems Introduces the > first1,000mW High Performance 802.11b/g Radio > > >> Um, in the USA the MAX unlicensed radio output is 30 dB. 1 watt. Not >> two. >> >> Do NOT use a 2 watt radio. >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Valenti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Freespace Systems Introduces the >> first1, 000mW High Performance 802.11b/g Radio >> >> >>> I'm not sure why the tech sheet on it doesn't mention the true power >>> output, but it is a 2+ watt radio. I was thinking about using a pair >>> for amateur radio applications, where I don't have to stay within the >>> part 15 limits. (but I suppose I'll be able to turn the power down >>> after marveling at the strong signal). >>> >>> Hmmm, it almost seems like a 4 watt radio, Lonnie says it is 36dB >>> here: http://forums.star-os.com/showpost.php?p=58184&postcount=2 >>> >>> Oh, if only I lived in the mountains! >>> >>> On July 25, at 8:50 AM July 25, Matt Ferre wrote: >>> But it looks the same. And it is called WLM54G-30dBm so one would assume it's 30dBm radio which is 1000mW? Perhaps the difference is the same as between Mikrotik R52 and Compex WLM54AG? On 7/25/08, George Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, really. That's not the same radio. > > The only radio at that power level Compex produces now is our > version and > for us exclusively. > > > Thanks, > > George > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matt Ferre > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:05 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Freespace Systems Introduces > the first > 1, 000mW High Performance 802.11b/g Radio > > Really > > http://shop.defactowireless.com/ > s.nl;jsessionid=0a01074d1f43c80823dd5df943ac > ac24b0d56d908581.e3eTaxaQbxmTe34Pa38Ta38LbNz0?it=A&id=1568 > >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify something for more than 20 MHz of channel space. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on 3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I read on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations in your area? Thanks, Michiana Wireless, Inc. John Buwa, President http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com 574-233-7170 "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charles Wu > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:04 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > That's a lot easier *SAID* than done... > > Especially when you factor in frame rates / etc (as one configures > those depending on the type of traffic) > > --- > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > Coming to a City Near You > http://www.winog.com > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jeff Booher > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:37 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > > > Having a competitor use the same upload and download ratios and similar > GPS > settings will yes, make it so operators can coexist without the issues > of > interference. > > > > > Jeff Booher > > Channel Manager, North America > www.apertonet.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 24/7: 206-455-4950 > > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or > work > product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > reliance or > distribution by others without express permission is strictly > prohibited. If > you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and > delete all > copies. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > John, > > >From what I understand all manufactures are required to use the same > >GPS > sync, so all WiMax gear with the appropriate timing settings equal can > be > timed together. Apparently the FCC is requiring it for the equipment > to be > certified. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Rock > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:37 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field > > I would disagree. WiMAX should be a goal for most WISPs to get into > their > networks over the next 1-3 years. > Why??? Roaming!!! It will be the real deal and the WISP market, if they > do > the right things, will be able to setup roaming agreements to exist > with > each other all over the USA. > CPE will be available in all sorts of devices between 2.3 and 3.8 GHz > and > yes 3.65 falls in that window. Device frequency scanning will be > dictated by > > availabilty. So if the WISP Market, small and large, build compatable > 3.65 > networks with viable roaming agreements with the right service flows > everyone could be happy. Keep in mind the right things need to fall in > place > > for this to happen. > > Hurdles... > -CPE that really are interoperable and in many types of devices. > -Base Station RF in a cellular sence. That equals build outs with > competitive priced Base stations in mobile mind set. > -Base stations from different manufactureers that can GPS sync with > each > other so UL/DL ratios can co exist in a given area. To my knowledge > this > does not exist yet but would be critical to help with interference in > the > 3.65 GHz band. The WiMAX forum needs to make sure this does exist > between > base stations along with the interoperability standards they are > developing. > > The GPS peice may exist but I have yet to see in in the standerds. > > Thanks, > > John Rock > Wireless Connections > Director of Operations - Senior Engineer ACCessing the Future Today!! > ofc. 419.660.6100 > cell 419-706-7356 > fax 419-668-4077 > http://www.wirelessconnections.net > This transmission and any files attached to it, may contain > confidential > and/or privileged information and intended only for the named > recipient. If > you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, disclosure, > copying > > or any use of the information or files contained is strictly > prohibite
Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere?
And if you could get then what you do with them?? Wimax mini-pci are client side only there is no way to use them as a Wimax base stations. The protocol does not allow for it and there is allot more to a base then a radio and software. This is not to say someone could not hack a radio and hal to do something that is not Wimax :) But they would still need a license from Wavesat to do this. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available anywhere? There's a lot of buzz about the Wavesat engineered minipci's and their supposedly sub-$100 price tag. Anyone know more about this? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
